UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ PAUL HOWARD TILLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TRAVELENE FISH, Manager, North View Apartments; CHUCK (LNU), maintenance man, North View Apartments; NORTH VIEW APARTMENTS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 12-7029 (D.C. No. 6:10- CV-00430-FHS) (E. D. of Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

________________ _________________ Before MURPHY , EBEL , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ The district court dismissed Plaintiff-A ppellant Paul Tilley’s pro se civil rights claim on December 2, 2010. Mr. Tilley filed his motion for reconsid eration on March 23, 2012, and the district court summarily de nied it on March 26, 2012. Mr. Tilley now appeals that denial. Exercising jurisdicti on under 28 U.S.C. § 1 291, we AFFIRM.

 After examining the briefs and the appe llate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, re s judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value cons istent with Fed. R. Ap p. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 31, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I. BACKGROUND Mr. Tilley filed a civil rights complain t on November 17, 2010, naming as defendants the manager of the apartment bu ilding where he lives, a building maintenance worker, and the apartment co mplex itself. In his compla int Mr. Tilley alleged that Travelene Fish, the manager of the building, made dispar aging comments about him to pest control inspectors. He also alleged th at while on the telephone with Ms. Fish to discuss a problem with the pest control insp ectors, he overheard a man, whom he asserts was a maintenance man named Chuck, shout out “retard.” Mr. Tilley alleged he then heard laughter, and asked who had called him that name, a nd who was laughing, to which Ms. Fish said no one had called him that, and that she was alone. For these alleged wrongs, Mr. Tilley sought monetary damages. Mr. Tilley also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 2, 2010, the district court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the district c ourt sua sponte dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 1 Taking all of Mr. Tilley’s factual allegations as true, and liberally construing his compla int under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the district court nevertheless conc luded that Mr. Tilley had not alleged enough facts to state a plausi ble claim to relief. Among the reasons Mr. Tilley’s claim failed was the lack of any alle gation of state action, the lack of any facts

1 The defendants in this case were never served. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (dismissals of frivol ous or malicious cl aims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) typically occur before service of process “so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenien ce and expense of answer ing such complaints”).3 supporting a constitutiona l violation, and the failure to identify a place of public accommodation that might have di scriminated against Mr. Tilley. Fourteen months later, on March 23, 2012, Mr. Tilley filed his motion fo r reconsideration, and the district court denied it without comment three days later. Mr. Tilley timely appealed, and the district court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this appeal. II. DISCUSSION The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not make provision for a motion for reconsideration. When such a motion is filed more than twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, we construe it as a motion fo r relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (allowing only twenty-e ight days to file a mo tion to alter or amend the judgment); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Mr. T illey’s motion was filed more than a year after judgment entered. Accordingl y, we construe Mr. Tilley’s motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We review the denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2010). A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from j udgment may be granted for a number of specified reasons or “any other re ason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)- (6). Where the asserted ground s for relief are mistake, ina dvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fra ud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party, the motion must be made no later than one year after the entry of judgment. See id. 60(b )(1)-(3), (c)(1). Where the grounds fo r relief are that the judgment is void, or has been satisfied, or can no longe r equitably be applied prospectively, or for “any other reason,” the motion must still be ma de “within a reasonable time.” See id.4 60(b)(4)-(6), (c)(1). A party may not use Rule 60(b)(6)’s “any other re ason” catchall as a way to avoid the one-year time limit if that limit would ot herwise be applicable. See Plotner v. AT&T Corp., 224 F. 3d 1161, 1174 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’sh ip, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)). Mr. Tilley’s motion for reconsideration “[ does] not recite any of the exceptional circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60 (b), nor does our reading of the record disclose any.” Van Skiver v. United States , 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991). The motion, as we read it, can be construed on ly as a motion under Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect), 2 Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence), or Rule 60(b )(6) (any other reason justifying relief). To the extent that Mr. Tille y implicitly relies on either of the first two grounds, his motion was filed more than on e year after the entry of judgment and is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A nd relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005); OmarMuhammad v. Williams, 484 F.3d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Tilley’s motion does not assert any “compelling circumstances beyond [his] control” that would warrant such relief. Bud Brooks Tr ucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990).

2 Mr. Tilley’s arguments, before this Court, that the district court erred by failing to consider certain case law, without further explanation, do not amount to allegations of “mistake” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1). See Van Skiv er, 952 F.2d at 1244 (relief under Rule 60(b)(1) unwarranted where moti on “did not allege any facially obvious errors of law”).5 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Tilley’ s motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

DAVID M. EBEL Circuit Judge